So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

I don't live in KC. But here in Iowa we have a smoking ban at Bars, Restaraunts etc..
I am a smoker and I like the no smoking in bars, but the Iowa Law is all ****ed because they allow smoking at Casino's. It is an obvious conflict because many dollars roll into the State from Casino's.
So in essence you have the State telling small buisness what they can and can't do in their own buisness, but don't mess with the money and special intrest of the State.

The city has every right to decide what is an acceptable business or what happens in their city, from banning strip clubs, juice bars, smoking, alcohol, or make sure that where the restaurant is cooking their food is up to standard so people don't get sick and die.

Don't like it move to a new city that doesn't have said restrictions.

**** YOU. Nothing over dramatic at all. You are being a cock sucking asshole for allowing this kind of BULLYING to take place. Nice to know what kind of person you are that thinks this is acceptable. Seriously, it makes me sick that people think this is an ok use of the force of government.

And btw, your bullshit reasoning tries to lump in zoning laws and health codes and whatever... why don't you try to give a LEGITIMATE reason that its ok for a city to OVERRULE a private business owners rights. A little hint: because the majority said so is not a legitimate reason.

**** YOU. Nothing over dramatic at all. You are being a cock sucking asshole for allowing this kind of BULLYING to take place. Nice to know what kind of person you are that thinks this is acceptable. Seriously, it makes me sick that people think this is an ok use of the force of government.

And btw, your bullshit reasoning tries to lump in zoning laws and health codes and whatever... why don't you try to give a LEGITIMATE reason that its ok for a city to OVERRULE a private business owners rights. A little hint: because the majority said so is not a legitimate reason.

Like I said you are being over-dramatic.

A city has every right to overrule a private business owners right because the owner has to agree to the cities rules when they open up the business in said city.

Just like being a homeowner I have to abide by the cities rules for my home, like keeping my yard mowed, no junkyard in my front lawn, can't have a fire pit, etc etc

You've decided to not go out because of the smoking ban? I find that interesting. Is it more that you can't stand not being able to smoke while having a drink, or just are in disagreement with the ruling?

Honestly it was a combination of things. Saying it was only the smoking ban would be not entirely accurate. .Much of it is that Iím just older and donít function the day after a night of play like I once did. Additionally is a great deal less expensive to have a couple of friends over for cocktails than it is to go out. But I do remember being pretty ticked when an old lady was barking at me because cold air came through the door as I wondering out into a sleet storm. The waitresses I know do say the lost business has cost them as does the former owner of my preferred pub that had to sell his business. Did the smoking ban cost him his dream of self sufficiency? I donít think that is the main issue but, he would argue it was the tipping point. Going outside to smoke really isnít that big of a deal it is just another one of those letís stick it to the other guy things that while popular now, just rubs me the wrong way. I have no doubt there are people that dislike the odor of cigarettes much the same as I donít care for old lady perfume. I see it as the same thing as NY city deciding how large of a soft drink they are willing to let me purchase. That is just not the kind of government Iím looking for.

Smoking bans have saved me a ton of money. Even here in Branson where they don't have one, many establishments are just non smoking. I don't eat in sit down restaurants anymore, and I drink at home or at friend's homes. It made me mad at first, but shit, it's paying for my cigarettes now. I'm good. Everyone wins.

Smoking bans have saved me a ton of money. Even here in Branson where they don't have one, many establishments are just non smoking. I don't eat in sit down restaurants anymore, and I drink at home or at friend's homes. It made me mad at first, but shit, it's paying for my cigarettes now. I'm good. Everyone wins.

Except for the private property owners who have been stripped of their rights. But sure, it's all good other than violating one of the most important principles our nation was founded on.

And yet another smoking ban thread that misses the point entirely. Any smoker who claims a ban violates their "rights" is an idiot. Just like the anti-smoking crowd who claim they somehow have a "right" to a smoke free environment when they go out.

Smoking bans are an infringement on ONE person's rights... the OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY. That's it.

The only thing to debate is wether or not you feel it is justified for the government (in this case city) to step in and tell a private property owner what is ok behavior for adults on their property.

Smoking bans don't hurt me in the least but I still find them to be massive violations of private property rights.

Nailed it. But I've beaten the drum for so long, I just don't have it in me anymore. Still love reading posts from people who get it though.

Austin is every bit as pissed about this as I was. I just don't have it in me anymore. Like I've said in the past, when you are okay with taking someone else's rights away because it doesn't affect you, don't be surprised or angry when they don't care about your rights being taken away. I'm looking at the nazi gun owners right now.